Adapt or Abandon? Hard Choices in the Himalayas | Hacker News Reader

Adapt or Abandon? Hard Choices in the Himalayas

sapiens.org

We don’t think enough about decommissioning settlements. Whether coastal towns threatened by rising tides, or desertifying inland villages, there are many places that used to be habitable and will soon not be.

This is nothing new, in the long history of Homo Sapiens. We have abandoned homes before, as conditions changed. See Doggerland for an example of an inhabited area that is now completely underwater.

But we now seem to be living in an age of extreme entrenchment and calcification of things like borders, citizenship, land ownership, and of course the sturdy permanence of modern houses (which are usually a 100+ year investment in a location, unlike more primitive structures).

I welcome experiments into how to unblock, destigmatize and finance (a) the movement of people and, and (b) the end-of-life phase of cities, towns and villages.

We should of course also try to slow and reverse climate change, but let’s be realistic about the level of warming we are already locked into, and the need for humane migration solutions.

The subcontinent is one of the first places that will be hit by climate change. That's 1.5-2 billion people that will need relocating. Where are we going to put them? Bangladesh alone is like 200 million.

The news mentions this but people don’t seem to be internalizing it. Climate refugees are absolutely going to be the reason for future wars.

Future wars or future walls.

All the continents are being "hit" by climate change already. People are already relocating due to conflicts and poverty driven by droughts and changing climates disrupting traditional lifestyles. Flooding, forest fires, hurricanes of greater intensity, droughts with no end-in-sight and none of it limited just to the coastal regions of popular media analysis. It's time to stop talking about this as something that will happen in the future and acknowledge it's already happening and change our behavior accordingly.

What change are you proposing exactly? The neighboring countries don't particularly want to let in the millions of Bangladeshis who will be displaced due to sea level rise. Accepting climate refugees might be the morally correct thing to do but as a practical matter most countries don't want the expense and social burden.

Its foolish to assume that the coast line is going to stay where its most convenient for housing. Its like building a tree house then complaining that the tree keeps growing despite the uselessness of further growth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com